And as house prices gather momento

michaels

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Whichever way you wish to meausre it. Whatever way you wish to describe it.

The increase in the amount of people it effects isn't good.

Unless you are getting richer due to more getting less, of course.

Which is better?

Everyone richer but more inequality (poverty up)
Everyone poorer but less inequality (poverty down)

I seem to be one of the few who judges my standard of living by what I have, not by what 'everyone else' has.

wotsthat

I don't know if that's the whole article but in those facts and figures there's not a single £ sign. If they'd just told us the income of someone in poverty in the UK then everyone would be able to put that in context.

Poverty is one of those words hijacked by politicians and redefined so it bears no resemblance to what most of the population thinks it means - like 'affordable'.

I don't believe, for example, there are 500,000 children living in families that can't afford to feed them. I could be persuaded, at a push, there are 500,000 children in families where their needs are given a low priority.

Poverty is about so much more than money.

Graham_Devon

michaels wrote: »

Which is better?

Everyone richer but more inequality (poverty up)
Everyone poorer but less inequality (poverty down)

I seem to be one of the few who judges my standard of living by what I have, not by what 'every else' has.

Neither.

But certainly a growing number in relative poverty isn't "better".

And this article isn't about your standard of living, or any other single persons. To many variables for that, such as illeness, family breakdown, disability etc. Your personal standard of living could change at the drop of the hat. Many peoples have...and it's not always something that not buying an iphone can solve.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But certainly a growing number in relative poverty isn't "better".

During the recession less people were in (relative) poverty but you focused on absolute measures of poverty. Now there's a recovery less people will be in (absolute) poverty so you'll be focusing on relative poverty.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

During the recession less people were in (relative) poverty but you focused on absolute measures of poverty. Now there's a recovery less people will be in (absolute) poverty so you'll be focusing on relative poverty.

That's what the article is about. :undecided

Do you not get bored of following me around like a lost puppy?

BillJones

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Its worrying to see how bad things really have become and will hopefully silence those that rant on here about how good things are now compared to when they were younger...

You are the one ranting, I'm afraid, but yes, of course things are far better now. As pointed out above, relative poverty is a rubbish measure, it almost seems to have been invented to allow scare stories by people with an agenda...

neverdespairgirl

Pobby wrote: »

More than 500,000 children live in families who cannot afford to feed them properly

I simply don't believe that.

TickersPlaysPop

This has been a very interesting thread.

I'm wondering why an all party inquiry used such misleading stats. Poverty is a very complex thing to measure it seems, and it appears to be another topic where the stats need to be presented in detail for it all to be in context.

For me, I now need to see a plot of the data, which would be an S curve plot from lowest to highest poverty to get a feel for the median.

Also, cash left after mortgage, is not a constant amongst people.... I for example have chosen to put more money into paying of the mortgage compared to investing in pension/shares.

There is so much detail, I think the data needs to be finely reviewed to draw conclusions... I am guessing the inquiry was a nonsense if you delve deep into the detail?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

I am guessing the inquiry was a nonsense if you delve deep into the detail?

It depends on your definition of 'nonsense'.

Poverty statistics are amongst the most abused of data, because 'poverty' is a very emotive word that politicians can seize on to make their opponents look bad.

However it is absolutely the case that even the poorest in society today are significantly wealthier in terms of standard of living than the poor of 40 or 50 years ago.

And as society has become wealthier and better educated, leading to significantly more people becoming high earners, then the relative nature of the 'poverty' measurement has led to more people being classed as in poverty, despite many/most of those people being far from what any rational person would consider as 'poor', and indeed significantly better off than they would have been even just a few decades ago.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Whichever way you wish to meausre it. Whatever way you wish to describe it.

The increase in the amount of people it effects isn't good.

I can't really agree with that statement.

We have a society where almost everyone is significantly better off than they used to be decades ago, but more people are classed as being 'in poverty'.

Because poverty is a relative measurement, not a measurement of whether or not people are actually poor.

In the recent recession poverty actually decreased. Not because the poor had any more money. But because although the income of poor people was reduced, the income of rich people was reduced by more.

Everyone got poorer, but poverty 'decreased'.

Not a very good statistic really......